Theos-Talk Archives (March 2011 Message tt00149)

These articles were concerned with ethics, and if we follow the maxim, as above, so below, then of course there is an element of the creative principles, however, the main point, imo, is that altruism will never result until we not only realise but understand that we are all connected - we must recognize the non-separateness of nature, including our own.
Â
In this way considerations of most abstract metaphysics lead to a basis for ethical behavior that is suitable for our time and for our own daily living. It deepens the basis of how we treat others and how we act on a daily basis if we have these principles in mind. 

Hence altruism cannot be taught, it can only be felt.
Â
Cass



--- On Tue, 22/3/11, M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@Ja64-cSlgfhKNGVXnRxv6ijFInY1O21J1k0VkYXUMbMWFBG4kLL1fG_-2l1MCMK6c_AGJ0NUD3kRos4iFN_dB_EPZ_vZ7Q.yahoo.invalid> wrote:


From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@Ja64-cSlgfhKNGVXnRxv6ijFInY1O21J1k0VkYXUMbMWFBG4kLL1fG_-2l1MCMK6c_AGJ0NUD3kRos4iFN_dB_EPZ_vZ7Q.yahoo.invalid>
Subject: Re: theos-talk Charity among the theosophists
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Received: Tuesday, 22 March, 2011, 4:31 AM


 



Yes?
A Quite interesting and thoughtful article.
Let me throw a few words, so to maybe expand a bit upon the issue, by emphasising what Parabrahm is, and what Parabrahm not, when it is compared to Unity. And that Onesness to the Esoteric, is not what ordinarily is understood by many a Seeker.

T. Subba Row wrote:
"The Buddhists, on the other hand, deny either subjective or objective reality even to that one Self-Existence. Buddha declares that there is neither Creator nor an Absolute Being. Buddhist rationalism was ever too alive to the insuperable difficulty of admitting one absolute consciousness, as in the words of Flintâ"wherever there is consciousness there is relation, and wherever there is relation there is dualism.""
("The Ãryan-Arhat Esoteric Tenets on the Sevenfold Principle in Man,")
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/NotesOnSomeAryanArhatEsotericTenets.htm

H. P. Blavatsky wrote in the Secret Doctrine:
"The pure object apart from consciousness * is unknown to us, while living on the plane of our three-dimensional World; as we know only the mental states it excites in the perceiving Ego. And, so long as the contrast of Subject and Object endures â to wit, as long as we enjoy our five senses and no more, and do not know how to divorce our all-perceiving Ego (the Higher Self) from the thraldom of these senses â so long will it be impossible for the personal Ego to break through the barrier which separates it from a knowledge of things in themselves (or Substance). That Ego, progressing in an arc of ascending subjectivity, must exhaust the experience of every plane. But not till the Unit is merged in the ALL, whether on this or any other plane, and Subject and Object alike vanish in the absolute negation of the Nirvanic State (negation, again, only from our plane), is scaled that peak of Omniscience â the Knowledge of things-in-themselves; and the
 solution of the yet more awful riddle approached, before which even the highest Dhyan Chohan must bow in silence and ignorance â the unspeakable mystery of that which is called by the Vedantins, the PARABRAHMAM."
(See Secret Doctrine, Vol. I, p. 330)

M. Sufilight says:
If I remember correctly, Blavatsky also said that Parabrahm is without attributes of any kind what so ever, and beyond time, thought and existence. (SD, Vol. I, p. 130 footnote and elsewhere) Blavatsky was referring to the Prasanga Buddhists as the most esoteric of the known ones, and compared it the the Adwaita Vedanta's of the Buddhists. (BCW, vol. 14, p. 438) Prasanga is also Prasangika today.

A somewhat loose presentation is given on Prasangika or Prasanga in the Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prasa%E1%B9%85gika

Prabrahm or Prabrahm is viewed as Mulaprakriti by both humans and the Unmanifested Logos, each on their levels of Knowledge.

H. P. Blavatsky wrote in the Secret Doctrine:
"The author of the Four Lectures on the Bhagavad Gita, says, in speaking of Mulaprakriti: "From its (the Logos') objective standpoint, Parabrahmam appears to it as Mulaprakriti. . . . Of course this Mulaprakriti is material to it, as any material object is material to us. . . . Parabrahmam is an unconditioned and absolute reality, and Mulaprakriti is a sort of veil thrown over it." (Theosophist, Vol. VIII., p. 304.)"
(See Secret Doctrine, Vol. I, p. 10)

H. P. Blavatsky wrote in the Secret Doctrine:
"This LOGOS is the apex of the Pythagorean triangle. When the triangle is complete it becomes the Tetraktis, or the Triangle in the Square, and is the dual symbol of the four-lettered Tetragrammaton in the manifested Kosmos, and of its radical triple RAY in the unmanifested, or its noumenon.
Put more metaphysically, the classification given here of Cosmic Ultimates, is more one of convenience than of absolute philosophical accuracy. At the commencement of a great Manvantara, Parabrahm manifests as Mulaprakriti and then as the Logos. This Logos is equivalent to the "Unconscious Universal Mind," etc., of Western Pantheists. It constitutes the Basis of the SUBJECT-side of manifested Being, and is the source of all manifestations of individual consciousness. Mulaprakriti or Primordial Cosmic Substance, is the foundation of the OBJECT-side of things â the basis of all objective evolution and Cosmogenesis. Force, then, does not emerge with Primordial Substance from Parabrahmic Latency. It is the transformation into energy of the supra-conscious thought of the Logos, infused, so to speak, into the objectivation of the latter out of potential latency in the One Reality. Hence spring the wondrous laws of matter: hence the "primal impress" so vainly
 discussed by Bishop Temple. Force thus is not synchronous with the first objectivation of Mulaprakriti. But as, apart from it, the latter is absolutely and necessarily inert â a mere abstraction â it is unnecessary to weave too fine a cobweb of subtleties as to the order of succession of the Cosmic Ultimates. Force succeeds Mulaprakriti; but, minus Force, Mulaprakriti is for all practical intents and purposes non-existent.*"
(See Secret Doctrine, Vol. II, p. 24-25 - italics are used in the book)
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/SDVolume2.htm

M. Sufilight says:
And we know that Force is also defined as Fohat or Pho-ha-t (or Daiviprakriti ). And Unity is Force in its essence as far as I understand the words.

H. P. Blavatsky wrote in the Secret Doctrine:
" Parabrahm (the One Reality, the Absolute) is the field of Absolute Consciousness, i.e., that Essence which is out of all relation to conditioned existence, and of which conscious existence is a conditioned symbol. But once that we pass in thought from this (to us) Absolute Negation, duality supervenes in the contrast of Spirit (or consciousness) and Matter, Subject and Object."
(See Secret Doctrine, Vol. I, p. 15)
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/SDVolume_I.htm

So Parabrahm is to us in thought Absolute Negation.

M. Sufilight

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Cass Silva 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 2:29 AM
Subject: Re: theos-talk Charity among the theosophists

Non-separatenessDear Member of Blavatsky Net, 
One of the important principles of Theosophy is the underlying radical unity of all. Blavatsky indicated the importance of this principle when she wrote in 1888: 
If the student bears in mind that there is but One Universal Element, which is infinite, unborn, and undying, and that all the rest â as in the world of phenomena â are but so many various differentiated aspects and transformations (correlations, they are now called) of that One, from Cosmical down to microcosmical effects, from super-human down to human and sub-human beings, the totality, in short, of objective existence â then the first and chief difficulty will disappear and Occult Cosmology may be mastered. (SDi75) 
She offers the same idea again but entirely rephrased: 
The radical unity of the ultimate essence of each constituent part of compounds in Nature â from Star to mineral Atom, from the highest Dhyan Chohan to the smallest infusoria, in the fullest acceptation of the term, and whether applied to the spiritual, intellectual, or physical worlds â this is the one fundamental law in Occult Science. (SDi120) 
Again: 
Hence the Spirit of Non-Separateness in esoteric philosophy must be the ONE truth. (BCW IX p 24, Miscellaneous Notes by HPB) 
Since "this is the one fundamental law in Occult Science" the above passages likely deserve more attention than they normally receive. Upon reflection wouldn't we agree that such "radical unity" should be accorded this level of priority? 
One of the important consequences of this metaphysical insight is that it gives a logical basis for the binding force of ethics. The binding force of ethics ceases to be "God said to do it" and becomes replaced with a basis in underlying unity. 
For example note how this radical unity changes various axioms from different traditions. The Dalai Lama says "My religion is kindness." That makes more sense if we are all fundamentally one. Sai Baba says "Love all, serve all". His maxim also makes more sense in light of underlying oneness. Jesus stated his golden rule as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It turns out that this formulation, structured as a form of reciprocity, is the most common formulation of ethical behavior in the religions of the world. Theosophy says "Compassion is the law of laws". These rules all make more sense if we are one. William Q Judge expressed the Theosophical version of the golden rule as "Act for and as the self of all." By my preferences that is the best and simplest formulation of ethical principle. But notice how it also is formulated in terms of an underlying radical unity. 
In this way considerations of most abstract metaphysics lead to a basis for ethical behavior that is suitable for our time and for our own daily living. It deepens the basis of how we treat others and how we act on a daily basis if we have these principles in mind. 
Back in the first issue of this newsletter, July 2004, I brought out one of Blavatsky's predictions: 
"Modern Science is drawn more every day into the maÃlstrom of Occultism; unconsciously, no doubt, still very sensibly." (SDi124) 
So now the rather startling question arises for this newsletter. Has "Modern Science" been in any way drawn into this position of radical unity? 
________ 
This newsletter was instigated by the book "Entangled Minds - Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality" by Dean Radin Ph.D. in 2006. He currently is Laboratory Director at the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Petaluma, California. 
Radin's book presents an essentially two pronged idea. The first prong is the idea of "entanglement" that comes from developments in quantum physics over the last century. The essential idea of entanglement is that of a strange and radical unity underlying the cosmos - an idea suggestively supportive of the quotes from Blavatsky above. The second idea is the observation that these ideas derived from physics concerning the very small also have relevance to our affairs at the human level. In particular he presents an overwhelming mass of data supportive of psi (telepathy, clairvoyance etc) and notes the parallels between the physics and the psi conclusions. Besides this interesting idea, the massing of data supportive of psi is very impressive and helpful in its own right. 
Radin's juxtaposition of ideas is particularly suggestive of the very specific words of Blavatsky quoted above: 
from Cosmical down to microcosmical effects, [this includes the physics part] from super-human down to human and sub-human beings [this includes the psi part] 
Throughout the book, Radin marvels at the weird implications of the physics. He also orients us by quoting the physicists themselves as they express their own mystification at the implications of their theories. In interesting contrast we note the words of Blavatsky. When we bear this radical unity in mind: 
then the first and chief difficulty will disappear and Occult Cosmology may be mastered. 
We might add that the puzzles that are so well presented in Radin's book acquire a reasonable basis of explanation once we grant the occult assertions of radical unity presented by Blavatsky over a century ago. 
As an aside, we seem to regularly find someone presenting ideas that are found in the Secret Doctrine - adding some scientific data - and then receiving heaping praise for the original contribution. Just to give an example of that flavor, here is the first "praise for book" quote found in Radin's book. 
In this triumph of scientific imagination, Dean Radin shows in clear language how the mysteries of psychology and the mysteries of quantum mechanics may combine to point to a 'new reality' that makes the most daring science fiction look tame by comparison. (Michael Grosso Ph.D. author of "Experiencing the Next World Now") 
Indeed, the knowledge and insights contained in the Secret Doctrine by Blavatsky make other knowledge "look tame by comparison". In general she should receive more credit. But then that is one of the purposes of this newsletter. 
_______ 
For the purposes of this newsletter I will attempt to describe "entanglement" in two paragraphs. During the previous century it was discovered that quantum physics predicts a startling feature of the world that physicists now call "non-locality". In the later part of last century experiments proved the reality of this weird feature of "non-locality". What "non-locality" means is that we can no longer think - at least at the quantum level - of separate places. It is no longer valid to think of separate places such as "here" and "over there". Of course this does not make sense to us as we normally understand things - but then it does correspond to occult teachings. This idea of non-locality is based upon experiments with entangled particles. It has been theorized and then proven that when particles are entangled, then a change to one particle "over here" affects the other entangled particle "over there". The catch is that the change is communcated to the
other entangled particle faster than the speed of light. This would have disturbed Einstein and it demolishes the concept of "locality". 
As an example of entangled particles, one particle may split into two particles. Those two particles will separate and go in different directions. Those two particles will always be connected in a certain sense. For example they will conserve something called "spin" in physics. Their total "spin" will always "add" to zero. If one measures or alters the spin on one then it affects the spin on the other. The problem is that a signal to accomplish this coordination passes from one to the other particle at faster than the speed of light. Therefore the particles can no longer be viewed as located in separate places. (That technical term "spin" is not to be taken too literally. It is only suggestive.) 
Moreover, (yes this is a third paragraph) if there was a big bang then all particles in the universe were originally entangled. Since entanglement never ceases, those particles are all now entangled. That means the world does not have separate places as it seems. Instead "separation" is only an illusion. 
Understanding "non-separateness" is quite important in Theosophy. Theosophy refers to the "illusion of separateness" and the "heresy of separateness" as errors that hinder our progress along the path and that must be eliminated in our daily life. To make this clear and to present Theosophy's guidance on the subject, this newsletter exhibits many (but not all) of Blavatsky's quotes on the subject. 
Perhaps the best known of all her statements is from the devotional Voice of the Silence. 
If through the Hall of Wisdom, thou would'st reach the Vale of Bliss, Disciple, close fast thy senses against the great dire heresy of separateness that weans thee from the rest. (Voice of the Silence, Fragment I, 37 by HPB) 
Perhaps her most direct statement on the illusion of separateness may be this less accessed quote written in 1889: 
Now it is a fundamental doctrine of Theosophy that the âseparatenessâ which we feel between ourselves and the world of living beings around us is an illusion, not a reality. In very deed and truth, all men are one, not in a feeling of sentimental gush and hysterical enthusiasm, but in sober earnest. As all Eastern philosophy teaches, there is but ONE SELF in all the infinite Universe, and what we men call âselfâ is but the illusionary reflection of the ONE SELF in the heaving waters of earth. (Blavatsky Collected Writings p 104 Vol XI) 
The beginning of this newsletter commented on the relation of ethical maxims to the concept of radical unity. After writing that, I encountered this quote from Blavatsky also relating the "altruistic maxims of Theosophy" to the need to eliminate the "sense of separateness". 
Hence there is no contradiction whatever between the altruistic maxims of Theosophy and its injunction to kill out all desire for material things, to strive after spiritual perfection. For spiritual perfection and spiritual knowledge can only be reached on the spiritual plane; in other words, only in that state in which all sense of separateness, all selfishness, all feeling of personal interest and desire, has been merged in the wider consciousness of the unity of Mankind. (ibid p 105) 
Or to put it in summary form, radical unity implies Judge's maxim: Act for and as the self of all. 
None can feel the difference between himself and his fellow-students, such as âI am the wisest,â âI am more holy and pleasing to the teacher, or in my community, than my brother,â etc.âand remain an upasaka. His thoughts must be predominantly fixed upon his heart, chasing therefrom every hostile thought to any living being. It (the heart) must be full of the feeling of its non-separateness from the rest of beings as from all in Nature; otherwise no success can follow. (Practical Occultism by HPB) 
The opening of this next paragraph could have been written by a modern physicist - but the ending of the paragraph is Theosophy. 
Eastern PhilosophyÂÂoccult or exotericÂÂdoes not admit of an âIâ separate from the Universe, objective or subjective, material or spiritualÂÂotherwise than as a temporary illusion during the cycle of our incarnations. It is this regrettable illusion, the âheresy of separatenessâ or personality, the idea that our âIâ is distinct in eternity from the Universal EGO, that has to be conquered and destroyed as the root of selfishness and all evil, before we can get rid of rebirths and reach Nirvana. (BCW Vol XII p 407) 
She relates progress along the path to the need for the elimination of the illusion of separateness. 
Numerous are the pilgrims who desire to enter those waters; very few are the strong swimmers who reach the Beacon. He who would get there must cease to be a number, and become all numbers. He must have forgotten the illusion of separateness, and accept only the truth of collective individuality. (BCW Vol XI p 248, The Beacon of the Unknown) 
Here is another passage that shows the relationship between underlying unity and one's progress along the path. It is a little longish quote but it seems helpful. 
Sage. â Such attitude of mind must be attained as will enable one to look into the realities of things. The mind must escape from the mere formalities and conventions of life, even though outwardly one seems to obey all of them, and should be firmly established on the truth that Man is a copy of the Universe and has in himself a portion of the Supreme Being. To the extent this is realized will be the clearness of perception of truth. A realization of this leads inevitably to the conclusion that all other men and beings are united with us, and this removes the egotism which is the result of the notion of separateness. When the truth of Unity is understood, then distinctions due to comparisons made like the Phariseeâs, that one is better than his neighbor, disappear from the mind, leaving it more pure and free to act. (Conversations on Occultism by HPB) 
Here she tells us we must "tear asunder" the feeling of separateness to progress upon the path. 
For that purpose, every veil of illusion which creates a sense of personal isolation, a feeling of separateness from THE ALL, must be torn asunder, or, in other words, the aspirant must gradually discard all sense of selfishness with which we are all more or less affected. A study of the Law of Cosmic Evolution teaches us that the higher the evolution, the more does it tend towards Unity. In fact, Unity is the ultimate possibility of Nature, and those who through vanity and selfishness go against her purposes, cannot but incur the punishment of total annihilation. The Occultist thus recognises that unselfishness and a feeling of universal philanthropy are the inherent law of our being, and all he does is to attempt to destroy the chains of selfishness forged upon us all by Maya. (Is the desire to live selfish? by HPB) 
She gives the essential problem if we do not eliminate the illusion of separateness. 
It is because SELF pinions man within a narrow sphere âbeyond which mortal mind can never range,â that the destruction of the personal sense of separateness is indispensable to the Occultist. (Literary Jottings by HPB) 
In explaining some symbolism she explains further that this error is the cause of misery and suffering. 
... The âDragon,â who seeks to devour her coming child (the Universe), is the Dragon of absolute Wisdomâthat Wisdom which, recognising the non-separateness of the Universe and everything in it from the Absolute ALL, sees in it no better than the great Illusion, Mahamaya [great illusion], hence the cause of misery and suffering. (SD ii 384) 
To the phrase "collective individuality" she appends this footnote expressed in poignant language. It makes clear the logical connection between the radical unity and the resulting moral imperative. 
The illusion of the personality, of a separate ego, placed by our egotism in the forefront. In one word, it is necessary to assimilate all humanity, live by it, for it; and in it; in other terms, cease to be âone,â and become âallâ or the total. (ibid) 
In another stray comment on one of the stanzas she writes: 
This refers to the Non-Separateness of all that lives ... (SD i 68) 
A maxim of its own from the Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge. 
It is this sense of separateness which is the root of all evil. (Transactions) 
And finally here is a stray entry in the Theosophical Glossary by Blavatsky under "The Ring Pass Not". 
The circle within which are confined all those who still labour under the delusion of separateness. (Theosophical Glossary) 
I did not know the Buddhists had been teaching this principle. 
The latter âprincipleâ is the Lower Self, or that, which manifesting through our organic system, acting on this plane of illusion, imagines itself the Ego Sum, and thus falls into what Buddhist philosophy brands as the âheresy of separateness.â (Psychic and Noetic Action by HPB) 
Here she shows the idea to be Hindu as well. 
But the Hylo-Idealists deny the Vedantic idea of non-separateness, they deny that we are but parts of the whole; (BCW Vol IX p 138, Footnotes and Comment on "Ultimate Philosophy" by HPB) 
In fact, she extracts and highlights the same idea in the Bhagavadgita. 
Again, "Seek shelter in the eternal alone" (ibid). "Destroy the sense of separateness," repeats Krishna under every form. "The Mind (Manas) which follows the rambling senses, makes the Soul (Buddhi) as helpless as the boat which the wind leads astray upon the waters" (Bhagavatgita II. 70). (Preface to Voice of the Silence by HPB) 
She gives some insight into how this sense of separateness develops: 
There is a series of vehicles becoming more and more gross, from spirit to the densest matter, so that with each step downward and outward we get more and more the sense of separateness developed in us. Yet this is illusory, for if there were a real and complete separation between any two human beings, they could not communicate with, or understand each other in any way. (BCW Vol XIII p 71) 
__________ 
Radin's book is quite stimulating. Some of his negative remarks toward occultism are in error but his book as a whole is greatly useful. This resulting newsletter so far is only a fraction of what I had wanted to write as a review of his book. However it is time to draw this letter to a close. 
Much of this letter has been devoted to elaborating basic Theosophical ideas stimulated by his book rather than a review of his book in particular. And that is probably as it should be. In some future newsletter(s) I will continue the review as there is much more worth being said. 
In closing there are two points to make - one on the significance of these ideas and one on the maelstrom mentioned at the outset. 
"Entanglement", is a word introduced by Erwin Schrodinger, one of the original founders of quantum theory. He wrote: 
If two separated bodies, each by itself known maximally, enter a situation in which they influence each other, and separate again, then there occurs regularly that with I have just called entanglement of our knowledge of the two bodies ... I would not call that "one" but rather "the" characteristic trait of quantum mechanics. 
It may be surprising to find how significant Schrodinger found this property. In the above quote he called it "the" characteristic trait of quantum mechanics. It is from this trait of entanglement that physics is now deducing the radical unity of the universe. 
Henry Stapp, a physicist working with the entanglement experiments, has said the resulting experiments and conclusions could be the "most profound discovery in all of science". He did not even say "in physics" but rather "all of science". (Henry P. Stapp, Quantum Physics and the Physicist's View of Nature: Philosophical Implications of Bell's Theorem", in the World View of Contempary Physics ed. Richard E Kitchener p40, 1988) 
Blavatsky called this idea of radical unity the "fundamental law" of occultism. So Stapp, Schrodinger and Blavatsky all agree. 
Blavatsky said "Modern Science is drawn more every day into the maÃlstrom of Occultism". In this context we should note one more prediction. 
Yet it is all there, and one by one facts and processes in Natureâs workshops are permitted to find their way into the exact Sciences, while mysterious help is given to rare individuals in unravelling its arcana. It is at the close of great Cycles, in connection with racial development, that such events generally take place. We are at the very close of the cycle of 5,000 years of the present Aryan Kaliyuga; and between this time and 1897 there will be a large rent made in the Veil of Nature, and materialistic science will receive a death-blow. (SDi612) 
In 1897 the electron was discovered. That rent the Veil of Nature and she hit the exact year. 
She also referenced "at the close of great Cycles". Cycles don't always terminate exactly together but may overlap nearly together. The quantum age is said to have begun in 1900 with the work of Max Planck. This was a major discovery that qualifies as furthering the "rent" in nature. In the context of this discussion there is more. 
Quantum theory developed much more extensively from the work of Planck. Einstein objected to some aspects of the Quantum theory and published his seminal objections in 1935. That stimulated Bell's Theorem. That stimulated practical experiments. Those experiments were refined and extended. Physicists mulled over the consequences and implications. The proven concept of "non-locality" was the result. 
And indeed, in that way, just as Blavatsky asserted, Modern Science was drawn more every day into the maÃlstrom of Occultism. To see more of those details of history see an earlier newsletter I wrote at www.blavatsky.net/newsletter/2005/absolute.htm. 
Sources: 
"Entangled Minds" by Dean Radin at http://www.seekerbooks.com/book/9781416516774 
"The Non-Local Universe" by Nadeau and Kafatos at http://www.seekerbooks.com/book/9780195132564 
"Entanglement" by Amir Aczel http://www.seekerbooks.com/book/9780452284570 
_____________ 
Announcement of price reductions. 
These days Amazon is offering very large discounts on books. Their Secret Doctrine carries a 37% discount and other Theosophical texts are also discounted heavily. We have decided to meet those discounts on Theosophical books by Blavatsky at www.seekerbooks.com. So all of the books by Blavatsky are offered at Seeker Books at the same discount as offered at Amazon. 
The exception to this is that all books published by Theosophy Company are already offered at publisher price (a heavy discount leaving no profit to the publisher) for philanthropic reasons. So the books by that publisher are not further reduced in price. Whenever Theosophy Company offers a book by Blavatsky that will be the better price. For example a hardback Secret Doctrine by Theosophy Company will be lower priced than a discounted hardback version by another publisher. 
Your purchases help support this site. 
Reed Carson 

--- On Mon, 21/3/11, M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@Ja64-cSlgfhKNGVXnRxv6ijFInY1O21J1k0VkYXUMbMWFBG4kLL1fG_-2l1MCMK6c_AGJ0NUD3kRos4iFN_dB_EPZ_vZ7Q.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@Ja64-cSlgfhKNGVXnRxv6ijFInY1O21J1k0VkYXUMbMWFBG4kLL1fG_-2l1MCMK6c_AGJ0NUD3kRos4iFN_dB_EPZ_vZ7Q.yahoo.invalid>
Subject: Re: theos-talk Charity among the theosophists
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Received: Monday, 21 March, 2011, 2:35 AM

Dear Cass and friends

My views are:

When you throw an email or similar - you are offering an experience. If what you offer are designed so that it will have an impact on the reader - which leads to compassion - you are as far as I understand it teacing the individual.
But maybe we are dealing with semantics here.

Cass wrote:
"What you are suggesting is the same as the christian concept of forgiveness and kindness towards others. They have been talking about it for millenia but I still see very little of it in their action and the actions of their followers."

M. Sufilight says:
That is your interpretation, not mine.
What I am offering is that people meditate on what I write, and not that they merely blindly believe what I am offering.

Cass wrote:
"Karma is cause and effect - there is no moral issue attached to it. Karma acts indiscriminantly bringing about a reaction from an action but this does not mean that as a human I cannot have compassion for those who are suffering from karmic action."

M. Sufilight says:
And that compassion is a learner for other human beings. And when one offer such compassion, one also teach, as far as I understand the term.

M. Sufilight

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Cass Silva 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 2:30 AM
Subject: Re: theos-talk Charity among the theosophists

No,no,no we cannot teach altruism - it is not a science or a humanities subject. We cannot teach compassion, we cannot teach understanding. They are all learned through experiencing suffering by once being selfish, non compassionate and misunderstanding.

What you are suggesting is the same as the christian concept of forgiveness and kindness towards others. They have been talking about it for millenia but I still see very little of it in their action and the actions of their followers.

Karma is cause and effect - there is no moral issue attached to it. Karma acts indiscriminantly bringing about a reaction from an action but this does not mean that as a human I cannot have compassion for those who are suffering from karmic action. 

Cass

--- On Fri, 18/3/11, M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@Ja64-cSlgfhKNGVXnRxv6ijFInY1O21J1k0VkYXUMbMWFBG4kLL1fG_-2l1MCMK6c_AGJ0NUD3kRos4iFN_dB_EPZ_vZ7Q.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@Ja64-cSlgfhKNGVXnRxv6ijFInY1O21J1k0VkYXUMbMWFBG4kLL1fG_-2l1MCMK6c_AGJ0NUD3kRos4iFN_dB_EPZ_vZ7Q.yahoo.invalid>
Subject: Re: theos-talk Charity among the theosophists
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Received: Friday, 18 March, 2011, 5:20 AM

And the Law of Karma is then unacceptable?
And we cannot teach altruism?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Cass Silva 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: theos-talk Charity among the theosophists

Yes, but there is no comfort in knowing that thousands are dying in the most horrific circumstances. 

Cass

--- On Thu, 17/3/11, M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@Ja64-cSlgfhKNGVXnRxv6ijFInY1O21J1k0VkYXUMbMWFBG4kLL1fG_-2l1MCMK6c_AGJ0NUD3kRos4iFN_dB_EPZ_vZ7Q.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@Ja64-cSlgfhKNGVXnRxv6ijFInY1O21J1k0VkYXUMbMWFBG4kLL1fG_-2l1MCMK6c_AGJ0NUD3kRos4iFN_dB_EPZ_vZ7Q.yahoo.invalid>
Subject: Re: theos-talk Charity among the theosophists
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Received: Thursday, 17 March, 2011, 2:49 AM

Yes, I agree very much on that.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Cass Silva 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 4:51 AM
Subject: Re: theos-talk Charity among the theosophists

The world is now paying off our karmic debts stemming from Atlantis. The Atlantean souls that chose to use technology for their own selfish desires are now paying the price. The inundation prevented them from furthering along on that path, which god alone, knows what damage it could have done. As you say the Guardians of the Earth, take care that the few will not destroy the planet for the many.

Cass

--- On Wed, 16/3/11, M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@Ja64-cSlgfhKNGVXnRxv6ijFInY1O21J1k0VkYXUMbMWFBG4kLL1fG_-2l1MCMK6c_AGJ0NUD3kRos4iFN_dB_EPZ_vZ7Q.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@Ja64-cSlgfhKNGVXnRxv6ijFInY1O21J1k0VkYXUMbMWFBG4kLL1fG_-2l1MCMK6c_AGJ0NUD3kRos4iFN_dB_EPZ_vZ7Q.yahoo.invalid>
Subject: Re: theos-talk Charity among the theosophists
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Received: Wednesday, 16 March, 2011, 3:06 AM

Dear Cass and friends

My views are:

Try to read my previous e-mail about Orlog and Skuld.
Have you seen the Masters prevent what happened in the past?
And did the past disappearence of Atlantis happen due to karma?

>From time to time, not even the Masters can interfer.
Fast reforms in human nature does not occur in certain time periods.

So are the decree of Orlog and Skuld.
We can of course only do our best to seek to promote a non-secterian search after the meaning of life and its truth. Non-secterian and therefore not secterian.

M. Sufilight

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Cass Silva 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 1:49 AM
Subject: Re: theos-talk Charity among the theosophists

What we are witnessing at the moment is collective and national karma. I have not read one word of compassion from theos talk who have not been effected by recent events in the world, who are more concerned with concepts rather than reality. 

We are witnessing Noahic floods and devastation and all one can discuss is theosophical literature and conceptual ideas on what it means to be altruistic. The irony is that if the destruction continues, and I believe it will, accessing E-books will be the last thing on peoples minds.

Cass

--- On Tue, 15/3/11, M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@Ja64-cSlgfhKNGVXnRxv6ijFInY1O21J1k0VkYXUMbMWFBG4kLL1fG_-2l1MCMK6c_AGJ0NUD3kRos4iFN_dB_EPZ_vZ7Q.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@Ja64-cSlgfhKNGVXnRxv6ijFInY1O21J1k0VkYXUMbMWFBG4kLL1fG_-2l1MCMK6c_AGJ0NUD3kRos4iFN_dB_EPZ_vZ7Q.yahoo.invalid>
Subject: Re: theos-talk Charity among the theosophists
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Received: Tuesday, 15 March, 2011, 3:32 AM

Dear Cass and friends

My views are:

I will say, that those who are concerned about the Law of Karma and Reincarnation - are concerned with the karmic need of the individual and humanity as a whole, and its various groups.

I would rather say that people need help for their psychological requirements!
Theosophy is as we know the exact science on psychology. Altruism is the core, which I am concerned with as a theosophical Seeker, and not primarily physical events.

And no, the soul will not just like that take care of it self. Sorry, but I disagree.
The soul understood as Kama-Manas will not for obvious reasons take care of it self. The soul understood as Atma-Buddhi-Manas will neither. Teaching and compassion are even important here according to my knowledge. But, these are just my views.

I say: 
First the promotion of altruism - and reform in human nature.
After that materialism will become less imoprtant.
Without reform in human nature - I find business-related charity and the wellmeaning rebuilding of a materialistic society is a less promising agenda. - Yet, of course one aught to help those who are in need. That implies not necessarily that one help them with what they think they need, but what they are in spiritual need of, so a reform in human nature might take place.

But, these are just my views.

M. Sufilight

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Cass Silva 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:57 AM
Subject: Re: theos-talk Charity among the theosophists

We are in a different world to that which Blavatsky spoke of. People who have experienced catastrophes and lived through them need help for their physical requirements - the soul will take care of itself. 

Why is that the Roman church keeps silent during these times. Because they couldn't give a rats arse about the victims. ;let alone putting financial support behind them.

Cass

--- On Mon, 14/3/11, M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@Ja64-cSlgfhKNGVXnRxv6ijFInY1O21J1k0VkYXUMbMWFBG4kLL1fG_-2l1MCMK6c_AGJ0NUD3kRos4iFN_dB_EPZ_vZ7Q.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@Ja64-cSlgfhKNGVXnRxv6ijFInY1O21J1k0VkYXUMbMWFBG4kLL1fG_-2l1MCMK6c_AGJ0NUD3kRos4iFN_dB_EPZ_vZ7Q.yahoo.invalid>
Subject: theos-talk Charity among the theosophists
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Received: Monday, 14 March, 2011, 2:40 AM

Dear friends

My views are:

Now most of us have just seen the problems in Japan - which are given huge media coverage.
People because of that, seem to forget the sufferings in other regions on the globe, and especially the poor in Africa.

H. P. Blavatsky something quite special about Charity:
"ENQUIRER. But surely every one knows that millions and millions are spent annually on private and public charities?

THEOSOPHIST. Oh, yes; half of which sticks to the hands it passes through before getting to the needy; while a good portion or remainder gets into the hands of professional beggars, those who are too lazy to work, thus doing no good whatever to those who are really in misery and suffering. Haven't you heard that the first result of the great outflow of charity towards the East-end of London was to raise the rents in Whitechapel by some 20 per cent.?

ENQUIRER. What would you do, then?

THEOSOPHIST. Act individually and not collectively; follow the Northern Buddhist precepts: "Never put food into the mouth of the hungry by the hand of another"; "Never let the shadow of thy neighbour (a third person) come between thyself and the object of thy bounty"; "Never give to the Sun time to dry a tear before thou hast wiped it." Again "Never give money to the needy, or food to the priest, who begs at thy door, through thy servants, lest thy money should diminish gratitude, and thy food turn to gall."

ENQUIRER. But how can this be applied practically?

THEOSOPHIST. The Theosophical ideas of charity mean personal exertion for others; personal mercy and kindness; personal interest in the welfare of those who suffer; personal sympathy, forethought and assistance in their troubles or needs. We Theosophists do not believe in giving money (N. B., if we had it) through other people's hands or organizations. We believe in giving to the money a thousandfold greater power and effectiveness by our personal contact and sympathy with those who need it. We believe in relieving the starvation of the soul, as much if not more than the emptiness of the stomach; for gratitude does more good to the man who feels it, than to him for whom it is felt. Where's the gratitude which your "millions of pounds" should have called forth, or the good feelings provoked by them? Is it shown in the hatred of the East-End poor for the rich? in the growth of the party of anarchy and disorder? or by those thousands of unfortunate working
girls, victims to the "sweating" system, driven daily to eke out a living by going on the streets? Do your helpless old men and women thank you for the workhouses; or your poor for the poisonously unhealthy dwellings in which they are allowed to breed new generations of diseased, scrofulous and rickety children, only to put money into the pockets of the insatiable Shylocks who own houses? Therefore it is that every sovereign of all those "millions," contributed by good and would-be charitable people, falls like a burning curse instead of a blessing on the poor whom it should relieve. We call this generating national Karma, and terrible will be its results on the day of reckoning. "
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm

And I agree with Blavatsky very much even today.
Despite this, we witness many a so-called theosophist even among leaders of various groups - promote - another view. Namely that Charity is something good - and - saying that one just have to find the "right" organisation to support. We see such views expressed among people on various theospohical forums these days.

But these are of course my views on Charity - and - how to tackle altruism.

M. Sufilight

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]









      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]